Each of them says that the action has been already performed in the past in passive voice.
What I can't understand is the exact difference between the meaning of these two sentences. When is it better or more suitable to use passive voice of past simple versus passive voice of the present perfect?

I'd say that 1) could be anytime in the (distant) past and 2) could be more recently to just finished today
–
mplungjanMay 7 '13 at 7:38

1

They're both passive voice; that's why they look similar: they have the same structure. It's not possible to contrast passive voice with present perfect: they're two different categories, apples & oranges. One's a voice (passive vs active) & the other's a tense (present) & and aspect (perfect). I won't get into how many tenses there are or anything else, but I will say that before you ask a question, your should research the terms.
–
user21497May 7 '13 at 8:04

-1 This isn't a real question because it's illogical & doesn't make sense. Please rewrite the question so that it's logical. Ask for a comparison of the simple present & the present perfect (two oranges) in the passive voice (one apple).
–
user21497May 7 '13 at 8:08

ı think both are correct But I mainly use the first one
–
user43840May 7 '13 at 8:19

5 Answers
5

You're comparing apples to oranges. Your choice of whether to use the passive voice is not a choice that relates to tense. You don't make a choice between a voice and a tense; you make a choice between two voices, or between two tenses.

The choice of voices is between active and passive. In general, the active voice is more direct and powerful, and aligns the reader with the subject of the sentence. ("He wrote the book" draws attention to the person who wrote the book, more than to the book.) The passive voice, on the other hand, is softer, and more languid, and places the emphasis on the object of the verb rather than the subject. ("The book was written by him" places the reader's attention on the book, rather than on the author.)

In your examples, the first one indicates a completed action (he's through writing the book), whereas the second indicates something that was going on in the past and is possibly still going on now or at least was going on fairly recently. So it's simple: Choose your tense based on whether the action is done, or more continuous in nature.

For decades I pondered this very question. Here is what I think the differences are:

was written: Hugo was done writing the book and he would no longer participate in anything related to writing the book. He's done, so to speak. It also implies the timing of the action is in the more distant past.

has been written: Hugo from time to time writes the book. At the moment, he has stopped writing it. He may come back to write it again; who knows? It may also have other contributors. The timing is in the more recent past.

The difference lies in the hint and the atmosphere of the timing, and Hugo's schedule of writing the book.

I would rather believe, there is no difference in meaning, as it doesn't make a difference to the book. The book is finished. If this happened five minutes ago or all of a century ago, doesn't matter to the book. All you learn from these sentences is:

the book is completed (whenever)

the author's name is "Hugo".

The whole matter may change, if you apply the same sentence structure to a different subject:

"The husband was beaten by his wife."
vs.
"The husband has been beaten by his wife."

In the first case, him or her might be dead or otherwise unable to meet again. It is over. Either her therapy worked out, or they don't meet anymore. In the second case, the story may be ungoing. You may be reporting from the crime scene or the hospital, without a clue, how the story will continue.